Letter logo (new)

To the editor:

Reducing the use of fossil fuels and utility rate hikes sure sounds like something to buy into. But, it could cost ya!

I admit Small Modular Nuclear Reactors is something I’ve recently become aware of and trying to get a grip on. I know it’s most important that we look to alternatives to fossil fuels, but I do have concerns when it comes to nuclear power. So here’s some food for thought …

Energy from Small Modular Nuclear Reactors is being considered for use in Cache Valley with the main source coming from Idaho Falls. The Logan City Council voted to enter the next phase of a so-called Carbon Free Power Plan. I’ve read and heard that this plan is an untested, unproven nuclear power project.

It’s interesting that before a new drug can become legally available to the public, it has to be tested for years before final approval from the FDA. So should we be willing to accept this energy alternative without understanding the risks for health, financial repercussions and environmental hazard, and let’s not forget the extremely high usage of water? Seems we should understand more about the “side effects” that go along with a project such as this.

Some say wind generators and solar energy aren’t as reliable. Okay, but are they potentially as dangerous? When radioactive waste is shipped through Utah from Idaho Falls, as well as our own radioactive waste, what are the potential consequences? There are valid concerns regarding unpredictable events that could happen during transporting and storage. And what about caring for our planet and our future generations?

From what I understand based on information provided by Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah) Logan is one community Idaho wants to tap for their “project.” There is an “opportunity” to vote three times to have Small Modular Nuclear Reactors located in a community. Logan has cast its first YES vote. There is an opportunity to change the vote to “no” only during the first two votes. However once they agree to accept it on the third vote; it’s over. We would have a 40 YEAR COMMITMENT no matter what. There can be project delays, cost over-runs and the project could even get cancelled. NONE of these negative impacts will get us out of the commitment. Tax payers will be left holding the bag. And it’s a BIG money bag!

We really need to do as much homework on this one as we can and then figure out what side we want to be on. If you’re interested in finding out everything you ever wanted to know but were afraid to ask, you can start by googling “nukes in Utah” to get the pros and cons. I can’t help wondering if this whole project might be a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Carol Foht